Heritage in War

The world has been shocked by recent instances of the deliberate destruction of important cultural sites, such as ISIS's destruction of the Temple of Bel in Palmyra and the shrine of Imam Awn al-Din in Mosul. In response, the UK is due to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict (it is the only member of the UN Security Council, and the only major military power, not yet to have done so). The British Army is in the process of convening the Military Cultural Property Protection Working Group with the aim of developing guidelines for implementing the Convention. It should be noted that the Convention is framed in terms of 'cultural property'; we shall take this to refer to all culturally important objects, not only those that are owned.

The Convention challenges the assumption, standard within the study of ethics and also just war theory, that a greater value should always be attached to the avoidance of human suffering than to the avoidance of damage to cultural property. This challenge should be welcomed, since the standard assumption does not always sit easily with our actual attitudes and actions. The urgent need to evict ISIS from Palmyra, for example, was not simply a matter of securing military advantage. Furthermore, we are familiar, in other contexts, of weighing human life and suffering against other considerations - for example, in calculating how much to spend on passenger safety on public transport. A key question for the project will be how to weigh the harm of putting combatants in danger against the benefits of protecting cultural property.
Although the last ten years have seen an upsurge of philosophical interest in the ethics of war, the existing literature approaches questions of harm almost exclusively in the context of harm to life. Because the Convention puts states under an obligation to protect cultural property in war zones, there is an urgent need to apply or adapt this thinking so as to formulate principles that apply to such property. This project therefore aims to answer three central questions:
1. Under what circumstances may we intentionally or foreseeably damage sites of cultural property in war?
2. What, if anything, ought we to do to protect cultural property in conflict zones and at what cost?
3. What is the appropriate response to damaged sites of cultural property?
It will involve experts on the ethics of war and on aesthetic and cultural value. These will be drawn from within academia (for example, from philosophy, archaeology, and heritage studies) and outside academia (for example, the British Museum's 'Iraq Scheme' and The West Point Military Academy).
The project's findings have the potential to affect the actual conduct of war. It will help determine the circumstances in which an offensive designed to secure a military objective is rendered disproportionate by the collateral damage it will do to cultural property; or in which resources should be put towards protecting cultural property; or in which cultural property ought to be sacrificed to purely military objectives. As a corollary, it will help support public understanding about justification (or lack of justification) for engaging in war, and for conduct within war.

This project has a wide range of potential beneficiaries
1. Politicians. We aim to influence policy following the ratification of the Convention by working with Baroness Andrews, who led the UK Parliamentary debate in favour of ratifying the Convention, is on the CRG and will invite the All Party Parliamentary Group on CPP to the UK stakeholder seminar and conference to discuss how UK policy will change following ratification. Through the Norwegian Ethics Council for the Defence Sector (project partner) we will access politicians in Norway with responsibility for CPP and will have a policy seminar in Yr 1.
2. International lawyers. The project responds to and aims to influence legal changes entailed by the Convention. 3 key figures involved bring considerable experience and knowledge and facilitate engagement with the legal profession - Jann Kleffner Professor of International Law at the Swedish Defence University, Adil Ahmad Haque Professor of Law at Rutgers who writes on the law and ethics of armed conflict. Expertise on UK law by project partner Nick Howe, who has considerable experience of practicing public and private international law and appearances at a UN Tribunal in The Hague.
3. Military policy-makers: The Convention requires the military to prepare for implementation; our engagement with the Military will enable direct contribution to policy. Currently charged with this for the British Army is Lieutenant-Colonel Tim Purbrick who will keep us informed of developments; through our links with the Lieutenant-Colonel we will invite them to conferences and seminars. The US military have established a CPP Unit and the US foremost Military Academy, West Point, is a project partner. Laurie W. Rush, an archaeologist employed by the US military to run the CPP unit, who is also on the US Committee of the Blue Shield (see below), has agreed to participate giving a presentation at the US conference. West Point will host a stakeholder seminar in early 2019, providing an opportunity to influence members of the US Military. Through our Norwegian project partner we will talk directly to senior members of the Norwegian military on CPP.
4. Military personnel: A crucial challenge is to bridge the gap between theory and those 'on the ground'. The practical responsibility for protection of cultural property lies with the International Committee of the Blue Shield (BS), the only organisation created and mandated under international law to preserve cultural heritage during conflict. We will work with the UK BS (Chair, Peter Stone, is on the CRG) as well as other relevant bodies (such as the military) to produce a MOOC (a Massive Open Online Course) based on training material the BS has produced for UNESCO. Within data protection constraints we will evaluate the nature of the student body and their success rates. We will raise awareness of CPP within the military by lectures and seminars to military trainees and providing information to instructors on CPP.
5. Institutions working with heritage and culture: The project will organise 2 joint events with the 'Iraq project' of the British Museum; leading practical involvement with CPP in the Middle East. The first (Yr 2) will engage c30 people from different perspectives working in CPP (archaeologists, heritage professionals, experts in the trafficking of artefacts) to inform them of current work in CPP (by the project and by the BM) and to explore bids to the Government fund for CPP. The second (Yr 3) will be a public-facing event of c100 people. We will invite key 'opinion formers' (broadcast and other media, those who teach ethics and cognate disciplines) to raise awareness of current work in CPP to make it part of the debate about the nature and justification (or not) of war.
6. NGOs: Emma Cunliffe, of Heritage for Peace, a key NGO working on CPP in Syria, is on the CRG. Through her we will identify ways in which NGOs can benefit from the progress and outcomes of the project.